Which Creation Story?

[RedFlare]

Which creation story does a fundamentalist believe in as there are two different ones at the commencement of Genesis?

[JSGuitarist]

I would guess it's probably the six literal days account, though I don't know if I particularly speak for me or everyone in general here.

[cubanito]

there are not 2 creation stories in Gen. The first narrative of the same Creation takes a wide angle view of the whole Earth. The second narrative focuses on the garden of Eden, and the subsequent developments there.

Therefore, while God is described as creating various living creatures (incl us) in a general way during the first narrative; in the second He creates certain creatures SPECIFICALLY for Eden. Thus we get that God "created them (mankind) male and female..." in the first, but in the second we get the specifics of how woman was fashioned from man's side (BTW, the true translation is not "rib" but rather "side" which could have included or not a rib).

Think how ridiculous is the proposition by "higher critics" that Genesis presents two disparate Creation stories placed together by a team of editors. Jewish scholars were not stupid men, nor were they ignorant of logic or of plain common sense. Do you think it is reasonable that a team of scholars, or even a single well-schooled scribe, would have included 2 creation stories which were plainly contradictory?

Jewish scholars were meticulous in their examination of the Scriptures, from earliest times they spent great time and effort in disputations over the minutest point of the Torah. To suppose that they could commit such an obvious and glaring error as to throw together 2 contradictory creation stories strains credulity. It also says something about the arrogance of the "Higher Critics" of the German 1800s and many modern scholars. They can believe their theories about contradictory creation stories only by the unspoken assumption that the supposed original editors, and subsequent Torah Scholars would not notice the error. Why did the ancients not notice and yet the moderns do? Because the moderns are so much smarter, of course.

Understand the difference between Jewish historical writings and other ancient "histories." The Jews strained to write what they thought was TRUE, even when it was as great embarrasment to them. There is no other ancient writings that protray their very originators (Abraham and Jacob) as liars, occasionally cowards and (in the case of the sons of Jacob) traitorous murderers of others and even their own brother. Their greatest King, David, is also portrayed as a traitorous murderer, and their wisest (Solomon) as a profligate whoremonger who abandoned God. And Moses? A murdering fugitive from Egypt so cowardly he affronted God in his fear of returning to Egypt, and ultimately judged not fit to enter the promised land.

And yet these same Jewish scholars, famous for their prolongued disputations over the minutest detail, who managed to write THE most honest self-deprecatory history of any ancient peoples, these same people supposedly pur 2 contradictory stories of creation, according to the "learned scholars" of our day.

More likely: the supposed contradictions are not there at all, the appearance of contradiction due to the same Creation even being narrated from differents angle.

JR

[NewGuy101]

Fundies differ on their views. I tend to hold the old earth model presented by Huge Ross, although I understand the young earth model and why people hold to it.

[cubanito]

I also believe in an old earth, though not with certainty.
JR

[cubanito]

A new slant on Genesis, u really have to check this out guys...

Creation1.pps (http://mailcenter2.comcast.net/wmc/v/wm/481B76660002E2B9000047B922028887440B03019B07020E0D9A0C/Creation1.pps?cmd=MimePart&no=47&uid=24981&sid=c0&format=raw&mimepart=2.2.2&content_type=application/vnd.ms-powerpoint&name=Creation1%2Epps)

[Artificial Intelligence]

Eh, I definitely go with literal six days on this. Probably the best guy on this subject is Ken Ham. Of course Ham and Ross have had cat fights over the topic (is Ross even Fundamentalist??), being very interesting to watch. I’ve studied some books by Ross, I really like his time theories, but his creation theories are not biblical. You can find Ham’s site at http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and his museum info site at http://www.creationmuseum.org/


Also I only see one creation event, I don’t hold to the gap theory, between v1 and v2 such as Ross does. That is simply an overview of what was about to be written, which happens a few times through scripture. Also I reject any form of theistic-evolution and don’t find it cohesive with the creation event, not with the problem it has with the fallen nature of creation (Romans 8:22) and death presumably existing before Adam. Before the fall there was no death at all, it was all absolutely perfect, all of creation, it was "good" as Genesis says over and over. After the fall, it became all corrupt ("bad"), and is all dieing slowly due to decay. Even DNA is falling apart, it won't be long until nothing will be able to live... but God has a plan :thumbsup:

Now, I could probably go with theistic deevolution.. Theo-deevo? (Devo!), which is everything in the beginning being perfect and we basically turning into a lump of goo in the end (if left to do so). That’s about right I guess.
So whip it, whip it good!

[Caduceus]

In the first chapters of Genesis there are two distinct stories of creation, representing different stages in the development of the religion of Israel. The first is contained in chapter 1-2:4a and the second in 2:4b-25. The first account is generally assigned to the editorial activity of post-Exilic writers, while the second is dated to a much earlier period, possibly at about the time of the beginning of the Monarchy. The differences between the two versions may best be seen, when compared in tabular format.
[1] Genesis 1 - 2: 4a
The original state of the universe is a watery chaos.
The work of creation is assigned to Elohim and is divided into six separate operations, each belonging to one day.
The order of creation is :-
[a] Light.
The firmament – heaven.
[c] The dry land – earth. Separation of earth from sea.
[d] Vegetation – three orders.
[e] The heavenly bodies – sun, moon and stars.
[f] Birds and fishes.
[g] Animals and man, male and female together.

[2] Genesis 2: 4b – 25
The original state of the universe is a waterless waste without vegetation.The work of creation is assigned to Yahweh – Elohim and no note of time is given.
The order of creation is :-
[a] Man, made out of the dust.
[b] The garden, to the east in Eden.
[c] Trees of every kind, including the Tree of Life and the
Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
[d] Animals, beasts and birds (no mention of fish).
[e] Woman, created out of man

In addition to these two main accounts there are various references in Hebrew poetry to the divine activity in creation, suggesting that other forms of Creation myth may have been current in Israel. In Psalm 74:12-17 there is an account of how Yahweh in contest with the waters, smote the many headed Leviathan and then proceeded to create day and night, the heavenly bodies and the order of the seasons.

As in the Akkadian Epic of Creation - Marduk’s slaying of the chaos dragon, Tiamat, is followed by his ordering of the universe and by the building of Esagila [the great temple in Babylon with its ziqqurat]. It is also widely accepted that in the Hebrew word Te-hom, used to denote the abyss of waters, [Genesis 1:2] there is a reference to Tiamat. In the passage from Psalm 74 the name of the water dragon Leviathan is the same as the Ugaritic Lotan - the monster slain by Baal. Hence it is probable that the Hebrew poet was acquainted with the Canaanite form of the myth.

Another variant of the struggle of Baal with the forces of destruction, was the conflict with Mot - which finally resulted in the victory of Baal.

In Psalm 104, which is a meditation on Yahweh’s activity in creation, a number of features of the creation myth appear. Leviathan is mentioned - although not, apparently, as an enemy. Yahweh lays the beams of his chambers in the waters -a parallel to the watery abode of Ea. He rides upon the clouds – an epithet of Baal in the Ugaritic texts and there is a reference to the creation of the sun and moon and the ordering of the seasons.

Traces of the creation myth independent of the Genesis accounts occur in Job - Chapter 38 – one of the finest pieces of Hebrew poetry and probably of late post-Exilic date. Here Yahweh is depicted as laying the foundations of the earth on sockets, “when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy” – a feature of the myth which, though unparalleled in the Old Testament, finds an echo in the rejoicing of the gods over the victory of Marduk in the Akkadian Epic of Creation and also in the feast prepared by Baal for the gods and goddesses to celebrate the building of his palace. There is also the taming of the sea, to which Yahweh says – “thus far shall you come, and no farther and here shall your proud waves be stayed”.

Finally, the chaos-dragon myth passes into eschatology in the writings of the post exilic prophets. In Isaiah 27:1 an oracle, introduced by the characteristic formula – “in that day” - declares, “Yahweh with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea”.

It can be seen that the two separate traditions recording the primaeval state of the universe before the process of creation began, were very different from each other. Also, neither of these accounts is concerned with the problem of creation ex nihilo. They both assume the existence of some kind of material world and deal with the question of how the ordered universe, in which it was possible to live, came into being.

In each of them [B][U]the act of creation consisted in bringing order out of chaos, not of bringing matter into existence from nothing.

[Hentenza]

In each of them the act of creation consisted in bringing order out of chaos, not of bringing matter into existence from nothing.

Amazing how starting with a faulty premise kills the arguments made by whoever wrote this. BTW-Caduceus, post the link to your source.

Genesis 1:1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

No watery start here, is there?:doh:

Why do you think the author starts his argument from verse 2 purposely ignoring verse 1? Is verse 2 referring to the universe or to just earth? Lets see, here is verse 2:
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

The argument is flawed from the beginning.

[Caduceus]

BTW-Caduceus, post the link to your source.


Happy to do so - I assume you have access to a good library?

G.R.Driver: Canaanite Myths and Legends. Old Testament Studies No. 3.
Edinburgh. 1956
Enuma elish – The Akkadian Creation Epic. Translated by .A.Speiser.
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament: Edited by J.B.Pritchard. 3rd Edition 1969
S.H.Hooke: Babylonian and Assyrian Religion. 1953
H.Frankfort: Kingship and the Gods. Oriental Institute – University of Chicago. 1948

[Hentenza]

Happy to do so - I assume you have access to a good library?

G.R.Driver: Canaanite Myths and Legends. Old Testament Studies No. 3.
Edinburgh. 1956
Enuma elish – The Akkadian Creation Epic. Translated by .A.Speiser.
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament: Edited by J.B.Pritchard. 3rd Edition 1969
S.H.Hooke: Babylonian and Assyrian Religion. 1953
H.Frankfort: Kingship and the Gods. Oriental Institute – University of Chicago. 1948





Thanks for posting the source. But again, his premise is flawed from the beginning.

[Caduceus]

Thanks for posting the source. But again, his premise is flawed from the beginning.

It is not one person's premise - the post was based on the scholarship of several individuals. You claim the premise is wrong but fail to substantiate your statement.

[Vambram]

Firmly, and without any doubts, I hold to and believe in the YEC teaching of Creation based first of all from Genesis chapters 1-9, and also because there has been waaaay too much scientific evidence that disproves most if not all, of the myths of evolution.

[Artificial Intelligence]

Firmly, and without any doubts, I hold to and believe in the YEC teaching of Creation based first of all from Genesis chapters 1-9, and also because there has been waaaay too much scientific evidence that disproves most if not all, of the myths of evolution.
All ;)

Actually the evolution myth has never established itself beyond a theory, has never brought fourth any evidence to substantiate the theory as a fact. It has simply become a religious belief system, heh and one that has no evidence backing it unlike Christianity that does. Strangely enough, people are merging this Darwinian religion with Christianity, which imo is startling. :confused:

[Vambram]

All ;)

Actually the evolution myth has never established itself beyond a theory, has never brought fourth any evidence to substantiate the theory as a fact. It has simply become a religious belief system, heh and one that has no evidence backing it unlike Christianity that does. Strangely enough, people are merging this Darwinian religion with Christianity, which imo is startling. :confused:

QFT :amen::thumbsup:

[cubanito]

There's an unstated assumption in the "higher critical" proposal that the Genesis account is a reworking of other creation stories: that the Genesis account is younger.

It turns out that the OLDEST known writing is from UR of the Chaldeans, which is the homeland of Abraham. Thus, if we were to speculate on which is most likely the oldest written account, it would be reasonable to suppose that a rich man from Ur, such as Abraham, would have such an account writtten in the cuneiform style from that area. Interestingly, while Hebrew is certainly not cuneiform, it LOOKS a lot like it.

But all that is speculation.

In reality, there could have been some very early account from which BOTH Genesis, Akkadian or the many other similar ones were drawn from. Or Genesis could have been the earliest written account, as it descends from the people who inherited Abraham's direct blessing, and presumably written accounts, and the others merely bd copies.

The automatic relegation of Genesis as the newer copy without any support shows the bias of those who propose these ideas. A bias they deny in their pretentions of objectivity.

As for myself, I admit my lack of objectivity up front. By the power of God, Genesis is the correct account, first written by Abraham, a contemporary of Noah, from the area of the world with the earliest known writing. Believing in a God who could create the entire Universe, it requires little to also believe such a Being could preserve whatever account of His doings perfectly thorugh later generations.

JR

[Artificial Intelligence]

Uh what would it matter when it was written? The writer of Genesis was but taking dictation from God. There is no way anyone could convince me that Genesis is an invention of man, it has the fingerprint of God written all over it. Every major doctrine in the bible comes out of Gen 3, and all the words of the prophets validate it by precision fulfillment which man is incapable of.

I’m sure other accounts were written, those that were kept by Noah and his family from pre-flood era and spoken of through oral tradition by generation to generation. And those accounts twisted by some thereafter and some that retained truth. But what Genesis is, is not simply a straight account from oral tradition, because if one looks closely, there is fulfilled prophecy contained within it which can only be delivered by God. The whole plan of salvation is contained within it, it points to the cross that would not happen for 1000’s of years upon the time of writing of Genesis. Genesis is not only the creation account, but it contains the plan of God for man, and validates itself with the prophetic word. Overlook that and it all becomes nonsensical by perspective.

[Caduceus]

All ;)

Actually the evolution myth has never established itself beyond a theory, has never brought fourth any evidence to substantiate the theory as a fact.

You don't honestly believe that do you? Evolution is not a myth it is a scientific theory that has been tested and observed, albeit generally at microbiological levels. We cannot observe the entire range of evolutionary process because unfortunately human beings don't live long enough to do so. However, the plethora of evidence, all of which fits the hypothesis is now so vast that some scientists are arguing that evolution is, to all intents and purposes, a scientific fact.

As for your dismissive attitude towards theories - well gravity is also only a theory. However, I doubt you or any other fundamentalist would care to test it by leaping from the 90th floor and trusting in faith to prevent you plummeting down!

[Caduceus]

requires little to also believe such a Being could preserve whatever account of His doings perfectly thorugh later generations.

JR

Pity he didn't manage it then - it might have prevented all the anathemas and slaughter that Christians have engaged upon with each other over the last seventeen hundred years or so as they squabbled over the different versions of the Bible as well as the numerous interpretations relating to the composition of the deity and its ultimate purpose!

[Artificial Intelligence]

You don't honestly believe that do you? Evolution is not a myth it is a scientific theory that has been tested and observed, albeit generally at microbiological levels. We cannot observe the entire range of evolutionary process because unfortunately human beings don't live long enough to do so. However, the plethora of evidence, all of which fits the hypothesis is now so vast that some scientists are arguing that evolution is, to all intents and purposes, a scientific fact.

As for your dismissive attitude towards theories - well gravity is also only a theory. However, I doubt you or any other fundamentalist would care to test it by leaping from the 90th floor and trusting in faith to prevent you plummeting down!



You are talking about the effects of gravity, which can be seen. Yet there are no effects of evolution to be seen. Notice that gravity is well accepted by everyone, because you can see the effect of it from point a to point z as it moves the full distance from start to stop such as when one drops an apple. Evolution as but snapshots of a theoretical process, maybe point v, c, k, i and m, then tries to draw the rest in with hypothesis, but not even with a single a to b or o to p to make the distinction that even on the minute scale it happens lest alone on the full spectrum a to z. So in that, it is rejected, for it has never presented such a thing by measure.

Even with the results of gravity, I could take a film strip of the process and mix up each frame, then by scientific process rearrange the frames that will make sense and prove the effects of gravity. But what of evolution? It is wholly void of two consecutive frames at the least, and with such a process there should be even more links from transition to transition, but there aint. It’s just religious dogmatic narrow-minded religion, taken at blind faith on the word of a man that said it would stand or fall one whether or not SOMEDAY it could be proven, which it hasn’t any more than it was upon it’s creators writing table. Back to the drawing board.

[Hentenza]

It is not one person's premise - the post was based on the scholarship of several individuals. You claim the premise is wrong but fail to substantiate your statement.

I guess you just ignored post 9. :doh:

BTW- This is not the debate forum.;)

[Caduceus]

You are talking about the effects of gravity, which can be seen. Yet there are no effects of evolution to be seen.


Evolution (in a nutshell) is the impact of extraneous forces compelling organisms to adapt (through beneficial mutation) or die out.

This is exactly what the application of anti-biotics does to pathogenic bacteria. However, the bacteria have proved so successful at adapting to this new threat to their existence that we now have several strains that are anti-biotic resistant. So scientists not, you will note, theologians are working to find ever more successful methods of destroying these new strains.

That is evolution (albeit anthropogenic) in process.